RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that doesn't come up that much with replay is replay vs re-GM. I'd actually like to have the ability to re-GM scenarios more than the ability to replay them.
1) It makes it easier to invest in scenarios/modules if you can use it more than once (or twice with core).
2) It makes it easier to invest in maps if you can re-GM the adventures that use them.
3) It makes it easier to invest in specific miniatures if you can use them more often.
4) Out of character knowledge isn't an issue.
5) GM's generally get better at running a module if they have run it before (I know I do!)
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As was pointed out, this is a subject that does come up rather often, (which is kind of telling), and for the most part, there seems to be a small group of voices against the idea. Dragonmoon and Drogon are two of, what it seems the main champions against it.
I have not said one word in this thread I am not sure I am a champion of anything...
Wait, I have now spoken in this thread does this make me a champion?
*Sings with Drogon*
We are the champions, my friends,
And we'll keep on fighting 'til the end.
We are the champions.
We are the champions.
No time for losers
'Cause we are the champions of the world.
Edit: And it is Dragnmoon ;)
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the current system of "precious replay" is pretty decent.
"Precious" because of limited star replays, means you'll be saving them up for scenarios you'll really relish replaying. I think that prevents the grind Drogon warns about.
Re-GMing is an interesting issue. On the one hand, thoroughly preparing a scenario is a serious investment (money, props, time, effort), and running a scenario more than once can make you better at it.
On the other hand, I've occasionally been frustrated when one GM "hogs" a scenario even without credit, running it so often that everyone's played it, and I have a hard time finding people to run it for credit myself.
|
Could we maybe have a "season play" campaign?
Where you can make a character/s, play or replay any scenarios for the current season (1 year) and at the end of it, you must retire that character/s.
(Each player can only play or run a scenario once for that season.)
I know of player and gms with a whole bunch of character ideals, but would only commit to actually make a few, as they know there only so many games you can play or gm.
This way people can buy the new materials and get try them out on new characters. Without having to worry about running out of scenarios to play or avoid buying new materials, cos there just isn't enough games left to play a new character.
Sort of like an overall game reset that comes every year.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Muncie
|
I think that the problem is only 2 new scenarios a month I know its a lot to ask but adding a 3rd option a month (or every other month) might be an idea since we have a huge influx of new players. The last set of new player numbers were in the 178,000 range. I find it harder to run stuff for my "regulars" at my store most have played all the low stuff.
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads
|
One thing that doesn't come up that much with replay is replay vs re-GM. I'd actually like to have the ability to re-GM scenarios more than the ability to replay them.
1) It makes it easier to invest in scenarios/modules if you can use it more than once (or twice with core).
2) It makes it easier to invest in maps if you can re-GM the adventures that use them.
3) It makes it easier to invest in specific miniatures if you can use them more often.
4) Out of character knowledge isn't an issue.
5) GM's generally get better at running a module if they have run it before (I know I do!)
I actually wouldn't mind this. You avoid the pit falls of players steam rolling through known encounters. Get more people to GM. Maybe allow 1 extra GM credit per scenario....
I would need to think more on this but honestly this does seem like a viable solution.
With that being said, Campaign organization is a huge factor when it comes to avoiding replay. With 7 Seasons of scenario's, AP's, Modules, Thornkeep, Emerald Spire, Free RPG Day scenario's there a lot of material especially once you throw CORE into the mix.
Each location is unique in the player base and how the location operates. Coordinators must learn to work within those variables.
If you have a VC/VL handy in your area I suggest talking to them.
<edit> I replied to one post then moved on to talking to the original poster. Sorry about that ;-)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm personally pretty hesitant to vote for more replay. I've seen it break down campaigns in the ways the Drogon describes and my personal least favorite showing up excited for a scenario and having the entire table just meta-game steam roll it for something the get item/boon/etc.
Current replay options include 12 evergreen scenarios/modules, GM star replay (up to 10 scenarios with expanded narrative boon, more if you have multiple copies (and spread them out over seasons)) plus the core campaign. This currently allows for a scenario to be played and GMed up to 5 times for credit. Even assuming just 23 scenarios like this season, due to GenCon being early, that's a maximum of 102 credits (nearly 2/week), without evergreens or Modules or APs. I understand this is an unlikely or impossible set of events for many or even most players, but it is there.
Honestly, instead of expanded replays I would much prefer to see a third scenario a month published (assuming no drop in quality to do so). Though I understand it adds a lot of work to a number of hardworking individuals. The other expanded replay option I could see would allow GM stars to recharge every year automatically. (Though in my experience GM stars are extremely rare to be used anyway)
|
My group had a similar issue. We were running out of scenarios that the group could play. I know that a few people have already mentioned this, but have you tried the APs? It sounds like you have a group of dedicated players, and that's just what you need to play an AP. At first, the players and GM (myself included) only wanted to play APs that gave PFS credit. Eventually we decided that playing the game was what we enjoyed, and that PFS credit wasn't really our biggest concern. We've had a lot of fun with APs that don't give PFS credit. Dedicated players also appreciated that the AP was designed to take their characters to a higher level than regular PFS play (usually around 17). Maybe if you have a group in this situation, try an AP. You'll all still be playing the game you enjoy, just in a slightly different way.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Honestly, instead of expanded replays I would much prefer to see a third scenario a month published (assuming no drop in quality to do so).
This would solve so many things...
Though I understand it adds a lot of work to a number of hardworking individuals.
PFS is (from what I've heard in various panels from Paizo employees and seen in various discussion threads that Paizo employees participated in) the company's #1 marketing tool. Even as their top marketing tool, I imagine it's a hard decision to expand the budget for it by 50%. But it's been a years-long request from various people, and would do so much to help get more players involved. I wish they would pull the trigger.
The other expanded replay option I could see would allow GM stars to recharge every year automatically. (Though in my experience GM stars are extremely rare to be used anyway)
I think they are rarely used because they don't recharge. <-- They are a precious commodity that people use very carefully. And they should remain such.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though I understand it adds a lot of work to a number of hardworking individuals.PFS is (from what I've heard in various panels from Paizo employees and seen in various discussion threads that Paizo employees participated in) the company's #1 marketing tool. Even as their top marketing tool, I imagine it's a hard decision to expand the budget for it by 50%. But it's been a years-long request from various people, and would do so much to help get more players involved. I wish they would pull the trigger.
Not necessarily giving saying this is a good enough reason to not do it, just stating that there are concerns for overhead and time to do so. (If I went further I'd like to see maybe 1 or two of those the new three be seeker level content, though I've seen your proposed breakdown before and I think it's great.)
I think they are rarely used because they don't recharge. <-- They are a precious commodity that people use very carefully. And they should remain such.The other expanded replay option I could see would allow GM stars to recharge every year automatically. (Though in my experience GM stars are extremely rare to be used anyway)
You're probably right, the other reason they are infrequently used is because GMs with a lot of stars tend to GM more than they play (or about equally). If I had my druthers these replay stars could only be used for playing scenarios as I know a few who would like the excuse to get out from behind the screen a bit more. That said I can concede the argument that they are meant to be rare and should stay that way.
[derail]Congrats on the second store that's awesome.[/derail]
|
|
They recharge just fine. I would support the notion of Expanded Narrative being a boon you could apply to your local VO to receive one copy of per year, but you still don't get the recharges if you're not still GMing enough to fill it.THIS is a replay expansion proposal that I think fits the current, viable "precious replay" model, encourages GMing without over-incentivizing it, and tacitly encourages re-GMing.
(I'm non-credit-rerunning how many things at GenCon?)
1. Technically, they don't recharge at all.
The GM Star Replay Credits are a once per star, lifetime benefit.
Unless that changes in the season 7 guide which IIRC you're one of a few people who may know OR
2. You have the expanded narrative boon - which only works for 1 season, and can only use 1 a season. I was lucky enough to trade for mine, though I know other GMs who have not been so lucky. (I then kinda messed it up, but that's my own fault)3. All that said, I was giving a pure opinion of an option I see as more likely to happen. I don't actually want more replay personally, I'm a fan of how it is currently. (Though I am also running multiple sessions at GenCon for no credit)
4. I like the idea of a VO being able to hand out Expanded Narrative boons instead of Convention only.
|
|
It's not irrelevant to bring up unlimited replay, even though that's not what anybody is advocating. (Or, at least, not what most people are advocating.)
There's a continuum between "no replay" and "unlimited replay". Currently, we're fairly close to "no replay"; certainly closer to that than to "unlimited replay".
Observations from the past have taught us that unlimited replay can destroy OP campaigns. Yes, it sounds like LFR may have had other issues (too hard to get xp, too hard to get loot) driving people to want to "grind" scenarios that PFS doesn't have, so the comparison isn't perfect. But even though we don't have perfect data from which to draw a perfect logical conclusion, I'm convinced, anyway, that unlimited replay is far too risky.
So, the points are:
* Given the above, if we want the campaign to continue to succeed, it's much safer to be closer to "no replay" than it is to "unlimited replay".
* Some (Pirate Rob) have pointed out that it is possible to keep playing PFS once a week indefinitely without needing more replay.
* It really is a pretty small fraction of the player base that's having problems finding scenarios. They're here, and there are probably more of them than are posting on this thread. More replay would help them. But, there are many more people out there for whom it's not a problem.
Put these three things together, and I think opening up any more replay than we've got right now is simply too risky. Yes, it would help some people, but it might put the whole campaign at risk. We can't know for sure, and honestly I don't think that the number of people having a problem with it yet is enough for the level of risk that the whole campaign would be taking-- which could in the long run hurt far more players. From what some have said, it sounds like the problems that some have had with insufficient replay could be solved organizationally in their local area, and that's a better way to do it than to move the entire campaign in the risky direction along the replay axis.
|
|
* It really is a pretty small fraction of the player base that's having problems finding scenarios. They're here, and there are probably more of them than are posting on this thread. More replay would help them. But, there are many more people out there for whom it's not a problem.
For the sake of fully understanding this particular point, It's important to acknowledge that this "small fraction of the player base" is composed of people who spend more time playing the campaign than other people, and are more likely to be people who purchase more products. (As a side, the counter argument that "it's not designed to be played that much" is dumb, because it's telling people to engage in the product less and to look elsewhere to spend time.)
That's the messed up part of this whole no replay for no credit ruling, it punished people who spent more time with the campaign, which was backwards.
To reiterate before people jump on this, I understand why it's done this way, and that it is less of a problem now than it was then.
|
|
Sure... but two things about that. First, more products individually, I will agree with you that that's extremely likely. More products overall? Much harder to conclude.
More importantly, though, giving in to what those people want could potentially destroy (or at least significantly weaken) the entire OP campaign, which not only undermines the marketing effort, but also ends up in the long run hurting those same people it was trying to help.
|
|
Sure... but two things about that. First, more products individually, I will agree with you that that's extremely likely. More products overall? Much harder to conclude.
More importantly, though, giving in to what those people want could potentially destroy (or at least significantly weaken) the entire OP campaign, which not only undermines the marketing effort, but also ends up in the long run hurting those same people it was trying to help.
I wasn't making a statement about whether it would increase sales, I was pointing out that this policy is likely having a greater negative impact on people who probably "buy more individually", AKA loyal customers.
|
|
Since it was obviously not clear, I was asserting that Expanded Narrative is about the level of recharging that is good for the campaign, and that VO distribution of Expanded Narrative seems like a good compromise plan... (And a hopefully not undue level of burden on the VOs in question)I should, I suppose, note that I've used precisely 1 replay and have three seasons' worth of unused Expanded Narrative boons...
I may have also misread/misconstrued your comment. To which I can only say sorry. I can see that reading now upon reflection. I don't disagree. (I'd be happy to help distribute Expanded Narrative boons, especially if it were made contingent on something, likely either getting your next star or gming a set number of tables)
I've gotten 1 boon, I've used one star replay (that I didn't really need to use, I would have been happy taking no credit but due to a confluence of circumstances I had already started recharging a star in preparation for burning one. I ended up running the table instead of playing so ended up burning a star to take credit for a run of We Be Goblins Free).
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the sake of fully understanding this particular point, It's important to acknowledge that this "small fraction of the player base" is composed of people who spend more time playing the campaign than other people, and are more likely to be people who purchase more products.
This time it's NOT anecdotal:
No, they don't. People who play more often are more likely purchase online character builders like Hero Lab or the 4E D&D Insider account. The PFS players who are the most frequent players often use electronic versions of the books they need to own (unless they can skate by without owning the book, which I know a lot of players try to do <-- THAT is anecdotal). And who can blame them? Players who are attending multiple games in a week/month do not want to have to haul around a bunch of stuff to cover all the characters they have.
D&D Insider had a direct effect on the sales of 4E books. Frequent players never purchased any, instead sticking with their subscriptions. WotC lost a lot of sales on sideline books because the hard-core players never had to pick them up, and never seemed to be able to figure out what the right number of books to publish was. Casual players ate up things like the Eberron Campaign Setting and Dragonborn books. I *still* have casual 4E players coming in looking for the Forgotten Realms book that has the Swordmage in it.
You can find this kind of information in various trade magazines and insider pages online. Lots of store owners and distributors are willing to share their sales numbers on this stuff. The really good ones track customer purchases, and are very knowledgeable about what their "repeat" customers buy vs. their one-time shoppers (and how many of each they have). It helps inform buying decisions and keeps your cash flow correct.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
If the FLGS isn't selling product, they're not running the game. I can't see that as a good thing.
If you mean that because they sell the PDF Paizo is getting all the support they need, I think even they will argue with you on that. If it was all the support they needed, why do they bother publishing physical books? I know they have their subscription model, as well, but if they only needed THAT, then why bother with distribution at all?
I think they know they need the FLGS, the bookstores, and the distribution chain so that they can reach as many casual players as they possibly can. Else they don't sell enough books to survive.
|
|
Since it was obviously not clear, I was asserting that Expanded Narrative is about the level of recharging that is good for the campaign, and that VO distribution of Expanded Narrative seems like a good compromise plan... (And a hopefully not undue level of burden on the VOs in question)
He may not dm at cons enough to have heard the name of it.
Basic functionality of the DM stars shouldn't be tied to one form of DMing.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is tangential to what I'm actually talking about, and I'm not sure why you're avoiding the point. While I sympathize with what you are saying, and 100% agree with you that it's a problem that needs to be solved, but I'm going to avoid derailing.
Hrm. Sorry. Guess I'm not seeing why stating hard-core players buy more, and implying they therefore need more opportunity to play, is unrelated to this.
I'll leave it alone.
|
|
I'm against most forms of replay simply because I have a hard time recruiting enough GMs as it is. If my players could simply play every single slot without ever having to GM, it would make it more difficult. If I didn't continually recruit new players by virtue of having open seats and get the "fresh blood," I wouldn't get the up-and-coming GMs out of that crop. I know I've seen a rotation of some of my original players showing up less, but I have more tables than ever. Some of my original players have migrated to home games, and that's okay, but you either grow or die. Having the exact same people in the exact same chairs week after week prohibits growth.
That's my two coppers, as a VO and an organizer with two years experience.
(Sidebar, that puts me on the opposite side of the argument with my wife, who's played a TON. But that's my opinion.)
|
|
I have always been under the opinion that expanded narrative should be a GM boon not a Player boon. Making it a player boon actually makes it harder to get. Not only that it is not available at every convention.
I think it would work well added to the Race boons, allowing you to choose one or the other.
|
I have always been under the opinion that expanded narrative should be a GM boon not a Player boon. Making it a player boon actually makes it harder to get. Not only that it is not available at every convention.
I think it would work well added to the Race boons, allowing you to choose one or the other.
Alternatively, I'd like to see it as a Holiday Boon. Haven't seen any of those for a long while.
|
|
As Drogon and others have pointed out unlimited replay is a large factor in people quitting campaigns (and in some areas is already affecting DnD). Drogon even has data from something equivalent to exit interviews. For him this is not purely anecdotal evidence.
How?
Always the same people playing the same things.
People complaining when you bring a sub-optimal character class/build/weapon choice to a scenario because they already know what works.
People hunting the same chronicle over and over again for some mechanical benefit it provides.
A proliferation of copies of the same build over and over again.
Some of these may not appear to be the fault of unlimited replay but it plays a role or even directly determines all of them, and this is just a small list there are more.
Could this happen in PFS? Yes, oh you shouldn't play that ... here everything is immune. Oh every longsword at the table is an intelligent one, hmmm. Oh and due to that sword, all the martials at the table are optimized to make use of it.
The difference for evergreens is there are a number of them, they generally give less gold and prestige than a normal scenario, and they only work at level 1 (and once each at two). For the most part their chronicle sheets are pretty mundane too.
I could probably pull more information, but I will provide my own stats on evergreens. Of the twelve evergreens I have played 4.5 of them and gmed 5.5 (I've played some of Silverhex and run some of it) Of the 5 I've GMed 2 I haven't played (Thornkeep 1 and Wounded Wisp). Of my 8 characters 6 have at least one evergreen scenario attached. I have 11 sessions of evergreens (I believe split 50/50 gm and play), for a total of 13xp. Total sessions I have 123 (about 40% gm to 60% play) for 142 xp. (Under 9% of my games played/run have been evergreens and just over 9% of my xp comes from evergreens) For the total replay credits. I've played confirmation 3 times (2 extra xp), run we be goblins twice (1 extra xp), run we be goblins free twice (burned a gm star, 1 xp), and run wounded wisp twice (1 xp), for a sum total of 5 xp from replays. In some areas I'd imagine I'm on the extreme low end. I know of people who are low on scenarios played and used 5xp from evergreens on every character. In my area I'd suspect I'm average to high. Overall I'd guess this is about average.
(Lowest Level character counted 2.1, highest 13.2)
(Most evergreen credit on a character 4, most evergreen scenarios 3)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As Drogon and others have pointed out unlimited replay is a large factor in people quitting campaigns (and in some areas is already affecting DnD). Drogon even has data from something equivalent to exit interviews. For him this is not purely anecdotal evidence.
How?
Lets get away from "UNLIMITED" Replays, as basically no one is suggesting that. Instead, we are talking about opening up a bit more replay options.
Always the same people playing the same things.
Do they have other options? And if so how many? If an individual goes to a game night where there are three scenarios being played, two of which they have already played and 1 they have not, most people would opt to go for that new scenario, (even assuming they could replay the other two for credit). Assuming all other things are equal, (so one doesn't have a DM they like, one group doesn't have a player they don't like playing with, all three are valid options/have seats, etc. . .) I know I would. In fact, it's probably more likely that game 3, the one the individual has not played is either new or one that is not run often, which further seems to contradict the idea that opening replay would lead to hogging tables. It would actually give a valid alternative to that, as more players could play in more valid games for credit, meaning it wouldn't matter if they missed the new scenario this go around.
People complaining when you bring a sub-optimal character class/build/weapon choice to a scenario because they already know what works.
People already do this without Replay, (and sometimes its valid). Or the opposite, when there is a strong build that overshadows the other players. How is this any different than reading the scenario before hand or checking out the PFS GM Boards?
People hunting the same chronicle over and over again for some mechanical benefit it provides.
Which may or may not be true. There are only a few really good Chronicles out there, and most of them are very restricted options. I have not heard of this being an issue whatsoever with the DM Star Replays at all. It may have happened, but I have not heard of it. Instead, it's highly suggested that a lot of people used them either to help make a table, to be able to play through a scenario they failed, or because they really loved the story/play of a few particular scenarios and wanted to do it again. I can think of maybe two scenarios I would "hunt for", but in all honesty, they are not that important. They really are not.
A proliferation of copies of the same build over and over again.
In a lot of ways we already have this. How would more options for replay affect this? PFS Seasons already somewhat mandate this with the "Year of the Adamantine Sword", or "Year of the Diplomat". But, past 2nd level, doing an entire build to be able to be best at a scenario or two is, well sounds like a pretty terrible, (and extremely self-correcting) idea that they player will be stuck with thereafter.
Some of these may not appear to be the fault of unlimited replay but it plays a role or even directly determines all of them, and this is just a small list there are more.
I'm sorry, but based on the lack of evidence suggesting that, (with the possible exception of unlimited replay), I can not agree with this at all. There are just far, far too many other plausible reasons that are not accounted for. Instead, what it appears to suggest is that there are already some scenarios/modules that are really hard to get into, but opening replay would probably help to ease that outside of those scenarios/modules that are very hard to get into because they are not offered as options as much.
Could this happen in PFS? Yes, oh you shouldn't play that ... here everything is immune. Oh every longsword at the table is an intelligent one, hmmm. Oh and due to that sword, all the martials at the table are optimized to make use of it.
Well, speaking of the longsword, that was actually one of the few chronicles I'd consider "hunting", but and here is the big "but" that changes the whole thing, it's because I've gone on record many times expressing how in my opinion, that scenario was probably the best scenario I have ever played. The special chronicle is cool, but lets face it, it's also pretty underpowered. Even after the upgrade (which comes much later and only if you play your cards right), it's still not terribly effective an item. It is fun, don't get me wrong. It also feels like an achievement, but it's not terribly powerful. Another gives you a special Improved Familiar Option, which again is cool and fun, but not terribly powerful or outside of what you could already do if you wanted. Another gives a special Mount, which I would say is a bit on the powerful side, but not something I see people "hunt" for now that it's kind of well known. Another example is the special Goblin-related "pet", which honestly, is terrible. It reflavors an existing option that itself is pretty underwhelming at best.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's fair to summarize the discussion as such:
1. Unlimited replay is bad, as has been proven by previous online gaming communities. It would almost definitely be bad for PFS.
2. Limited replay, at least up to what has been included these days, doesn't seem to be causing much harm.
3. A fair amount of people think expanding limited replay would be a good idea, but this should be done carefully.
4. The main problem for long-term players are the early levels, since this is typically where one has played the most, unless they take every character they make to 12.
Not entirely fair; a rather biased summary. You left out:
3a: A fair amount of people also think expanding limited replay would be a bad idea, because it's too risky.
3b: Some people think there already is too much replay.
and
5: Some have pointed out that running out of scenarios can be solved other ways than adding replay, even if the number of scenarios printed isn't increased.
Some of the (more popular) suggestions:
1. Allow additional GMs of a scenario for credit, since this allows players to handle some of the difficulties with particular level ranges where they have played a lot of scenarios.
2. Expand GM star replays, either through more plays per star, or some expansion of how the Expanded Narrative boon is handed out. It should *not* be only available at conventions, and would be nice if it was handed out regularly (yearly). I think most people are, at most, comfortable an automatic refresh of GM stars at the start of each year, and perhaps that is even going this far to start.
You left out:
3. Not changing the amount of replay that we have right now.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it feels like this discussion is wrapping up.
It does?
About all of what can be said probably has at this point.
I think there is a lot of room for further ideas.
What could be really cool is to start looking at making evergreen scenarios that are outside of the level 1 range, or even, better yet, outside of the 1st-5th tier.
For those of us that have difficulty finding things to run that most people at our tables can play and be included in, this would go a long, long way. Low level is not the problem. It's the 3rd-7th ish levels that are the issue.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
A few things, in no specific order:
Regarding why the ability to replay harmed LFR, my own questions to those players leaving the system at the time revealed that the number one problem LFR had was new player recruitment. Due to the ability to replay, a small number of players were able to quickly claim all available seats at gaming tables. They didn't need to be concerned about whether or not they were able to play because the answer to, "Can you play this adventure?" was ALWAYS, "Yes." So, newer players who wanted to dip their toe in the waters found the pool full to brimming, and wandered away disappointed. This happened so often that eventually it became a talking point: "Interested in playing D&D? Don't bother showing up on that night the store is offering games; too many people and you won't get a seat."
It also led to GM fatigue. Because players could always commit to playing a game, they never had to GM. The same people ended up GMing over and over, often for the same group, and (more annoyingly) often using the same requested adventures. Without players making the leap from player to GM, the GM pool steadily declined.
So, to be clear, replay was awesome for steady players involved in the game. It was terrible for players NOT involved in the game, or those involved occasionally or on the administrative side (GMs). Eventually, as people moved on and found home games, or dropped out of LFR due to "that guy" they never wanted to play with, or because 4th Edition grew tiresome, the lack of fresh faces became the ultimate cause of LFR's fall from the limelight.
Regarding all the talk of "anecdotal evidence," I would like to point out that people asking for replay are every bit a part of this as those putting forth arguments against. The very nature of a small group having issues getting all its players to be able to play at the same table is anecdotal, as it is evidence limited to that small group of players.
Until we get access to Paizo's database, or the Wizards survey results, or the OrgPlay kit purchase numbers that Fantasy Flight has, ALL of what ANY of us say in these threads is anecdotal. And none of these companies are going to give us that access.
So, stop trying to invalidate an argument by claiming it's based on anecdotal evidence. Try instead to implement some of the solutions presented.
Regarding Tivadar's and Rob's lists, I would like to offer the following edits:
1 - In general, replay that cannot be limited in some measurable way is bad, as has been proven by previous Organized Play gaming communities' failures. The general consensus seems to indicate that it would almost definitely be bad for PFS.
2 - Limited replay, at least up to what has been included so far, doesn't seem to be causing much harm. When it has caused harm (The Great Planar Debacle) it has been dealt with by management appropriately.
3 - An unknown but vocal number of people think expanding limited replay would be a good idea, but this should be done carefully.
3a - An unknown but vocal number of people also think expanding limited replay would be a bad idea, because it's too risky.
3b - Some people think there already is too much replay.
3c - Some people think there is no such thing as "too much" replay.
4 - The main problem for long-term players are the early levels, since this is typically where one has played the most, unless they take every character they make to 12.
I highlighted number 4 for a reason. This is the best takeaway from this thread, and is the best takeaway every time this debate comes up. Low level content is integral to an OrgPlay system. No one can start without beginning at 1st level, and I honestly don't believe there is any such thing as "too much" first level content (notwithstanding the idea that if more is printed, less high level content will be - that's a separate issue).
Paizo has created a general problem for the PFRPG in recent years by NOT publishing 1st level modules. Nearly all of them are out of print and sold out, and the 1st volume of an Adventure Path is always the first one to sell out and become unavailable. This should be an obvious thing when looking at sales numbers, but for whatever reason they still don't publish as many as are needed. In PFS this has been addressed in the most recent season, but could still be handled with better attention.
So, the suggestions:
1 - For the groups experiencing problems, please try some of the solutions presented. They work. It has been proven by those who have had the same problems you are currently experiencing. Try the ones that you think you could implement, and report back in a few months on their success, or lack thereof.
2 - For Paizo: Allow GMs to gain additional XP from a scenario run more than once, since this allows players to handle some of the difficulties with particular level ranges where they have played a lot of scenarios.
3 - Also for Paizo: Expand GM star replays, either through more plays per star, or some expansion of how the Expanded Narrative boon is handed out. It should *not* be only available at conventions, and would be nice if it was handed out regularly (yearly). <--
4 - Also for Paizo: Publish more low-tier scenarios per month by expanding the number of scenarios published to three, making one of those scenarios ALWAYS be a 1-5 or 1-2.
5 - Also for Paizo: Publish more evergreen scenarios, potentially even outside the tier 1-2 range. By publishing evergreen scenarios at tiers 3-7, 5-9, and 7-11, players will be given an "always available" avenue of play for their non-1st level PCs. GMs will have a suite of adventures they can always have prepped so that players will always have an available game.
Of the five suggestions, only one is available without Paizo's direct involvement. Because of that, if your group is experiencing issues, you really should explore those options. Report the results when you have tried them. Those reports will begin moving these arguments away from "anecdotal" and hopefully get Paizo to look at suggestions 2 through 5 more seriously.
Is this a fair assessment?
|
|
I'd also love to see the PFS staff find a way to create chronicle sheets for the older 3.5 modules that Paizo published. Opening up some of those would increase the number of adventures available.
As per Drogon's point that there are no longer 1st level modules, I fully appreciate why they made the shift a year or two ago to the 64-page modules published 4 times a year, instead of the 32-page modules published... how fast where they published? 8 a year? 12 a year? I like the new modules; Dragon's Demand served as a fun mini-campaign when I ran it.
If Paizo had the ability to expand their offerings, perhaps a 4-time-a-year 32-page level 1-2 module wouldn't be a bad thing to consider. Of course, they know a lot more about the marketability of such things (and the viability of 32-page modules) than I do, so this may just be a dumb idea. But, from a player's point of view, it would be a cool thing.
(Personally, myself, I generally don't want to replay an adventure more than once, or, sometimes, 2-3 times. It gets old after a while, even if it's an awesome one. I like GMing multiple times, but part of the fun of playing is not knowing what's coming.)
|
|
I'd say #4 is maybe the one I don't really agree with, simply because there are so, so many options available, that is the one area where there is basically never going to be trouble finding something, and also the range there is basically no problems finding an on the spot GM as a last resort.
For people that already have played nearly everything, there is not a great deal of benefit to more simply because if they need to make a new character, even with the evergreen route getting them to 3rd or 4th, it practically guarantees they would not be able to advance it past a certain point for a long time.
What it does do is give them an option to help new players to the group "grind" through the early levels to get closer together, for the higher tier play everyone else is waiting on. (By grind, I mean rush through it as quickly as possible to just get it done so they can move on to the next thing)
Low level material isn't the issue, for the most part, it the higher level and transition points between the tiers. At least in cases like mine with only a few tables per week, but a more revolving player base.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I'd say #4 is maybe the one I don't really agree with, simply because there are so, so many options available, that is the one area where there is basically never going to be trouble finding something, and also the range there is basically no problems finding an on the spot GM as a last resort.
For people that already have played nearly everything, there is not a great deal of benefit to more simply because if they need to make a new character, even with the evergreen route getting them to 3rd or 4th, it practically guarantees they would not be able to advance it past a certain point for a long time.
What it does do is give them an option to help new players to the group "grind" through the early levels to get closer together, for the higher tier play everyone else is waiting on. (By grind, I mean rush through it as quickly as possible to just get it done so they can move on to the next thing)
Low level material isn't the issue, for the most part, it the higher level and transition points between the tiers. At least in cases like mine with only a few tables per week, but a more revolving player base.
Hm. I think the disconnect for you may have been my leaving the words "long term players" in there. The issue is providing low level content that long term players WANT to play alongside new players, so that the recruitment of new players remains a steady stream that runs everyone into higher tier content.
I am going to edit that point.
Edit: Or not. Seems to have timed out...
So:
4 - The main problem for any OrgPlay system seems to be the early levels, since this is typically where long-term players have played the most, as that is where newer players (and any PC long-term players create anew) must start. Current options become stale, overused, or unavailable very quickly.
Leading to an edit to solution #4:
4 - Also for Paizo: Publish more low-tier scenarios per month by expanding the number of scenarios published to three, making one of those scenarios ALWAYS be a 1-5 or 1-2. This allows Paizo the room to always be able to publish two other adventures that are higher tier, maintaining space for all types of play.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe from the observable data that this recurring discussion regarding replay is a ghost.
Once this incarnation is laid to rest another will spawn in 1d4+2 months.
I think it's actually a haunt. Some make their perception check and escape it before it hits. Others get trapped by its effects and suffer the consequences over and over. Channeling positive energy is difficult for any of us, so not nearly enough has been pointed at this discussion to banish it. And no one has figured out what will keep it from recurring at its regular interval.
|
|
You know, please base your responses on actual facts from the actual posts. And don't suggest bias, particularly intentional bias, on my part, when your amendments have things that are blatantly incorrect in them.
Not entirely fair; a rather biased summary. You left out:
3a: A fair amount of people also think expanding limited replay would be a bad idea, because it's too risky.
This is implied, and obvious. If *not everyone* thinks it's a good idea, then some people think it's a bad idea... It's unclear which is more popular, which is why I didn't say "most".
Either way, it does read as insinuating that one side is off by thinking so. I don't think that was your intent, but I can see it coming off that way, too, which does sound pretty bias.
3b: Some people think there already is too much replay.
Literally 0 people suggested this, and I've re-read the posts. Please reference at least one instance where someone indicated they thought this was the case.
To be fair, there have been some people that have said "any and all replay is too much". Not sure if they where here, but I have seen people say this on these boards. Might be similar to the notion that somehow "unlimited" Replay was being talked about, despite people repeatedly specifying that basically no one was talking about it?
|
|
You know, please base your responses on actual facts from the actual posts. And don't suggest bias, particularly intentional bias, on my part, when your amendments have things that are blatantly incorrect in them.
You did leave some things out. I didn't mean to dispute your points; some things just needed to be added.
This is implied, and obvious.
It's not obvious at all. You say that a lot of people want replay. It could be that the rest don't care. Given that some have said they don't want more replay, a fair summary should include that statement.
Literally 0 people suggested this, and I've re-read the posts. Please reference at least one instance where someone indicated they thought this was the case.
3b: Some people think there already is too much replay.
Drogon, at least, has said this, or at least strongly implied it. Some of this was in posts that he linked, which were intended to be part of the discussion.
Right, the more popular ideas for *changes to the replay system*. I guess you're correct I left this out, but this was meant to be "if we do, change it, here's what most people seem to prefer".
3. Not changing the amount of replay that we have right now.
But that's not what you said. You were presenting this as a list of suggestions for what *should be done*. If you want to fairly summarize the sentiments of the thread, you have to include one way or another that some people don't want changes.
This is why what you said was biased. You really did present it from the point of view of people who want changes, worded in such a way that you could technically claim it was a summary of the discussion, but in a way that, were somebody to read it as a summary, they would think that the sentiment for adding replay was more universal than this thread actually indicates.